William J Murray's posting privileges were suspended when he posted slander based on libel. Now he's got 'em back, and posts what amounts to one heaping pile o' Guano.

Patrick is right that TSZ is broken, when such dreck is considered appropriate fodder for discussion.

Oh, and Mung? I really hope you get paid by the post. Otherwise...well, it keeps you off the streets, I guess. And, I hope, out of classrooms.

I get the feeling Mung is a lonely old man who just likes to shit-stir for the attention.

WJM is just a dick no matter how you look at it.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

What is fact on the ground is that Trump is far exceeding my expectations and apparently the expectations of many if not most of those that voted for him, seeing as his popularity is rising.

I expected there to be quite a bit of drama and problems going in – I actually expected a lot worse than we’ve seen so far. I expect it to get a lot worse. A LOT. As we go forward. I expect there to be a lot more firings and bureaucratic throughput as Trump and his team sort out whom they can trust and who is actively acting to sabotage his agenda.

You think Flynn is going to be as serious as it gets? Flynn ain’t shit compared to the attempt at a power coup the 9th circuit just invoked. And just wait until Trump fires Priebus. The shit’s really going to be flying then. The corrupt marxist/fascist establishment is being laid bare for all to see.

You really don’t have any idea what Trump is doing, do you? You guys are working off the same playbook that got Trump elected in the first place. You have no idea what’s coming or what Trump’s end-game is.

Or maybe you do. Maybe you’re just another pizza-loving globalist troll trying to talk your way out of the populist/nationalist uprising.

William J Murray's posting privileges were suspended when he posted slander based on libel. Now he's got 'em back, and posts what amounts to one heaping pile o' Guano.

Patrick is right that TSZ is broken, when such dreck is considered appropriate fodder for discussion.

Oh, and Mung? I really hope you get paid by the post. Otherwise...well, it keeps you off the streets, I guess. And, I hope, out of classrooms.

I get the feeling Mung is a lonely old man who just likes to shit-stir for the attention.

WJM is just a dick no matter how you look at it.

Mung makes me think "DaveScot." Can write little without a sneer, bitter at science/scientists (not quite sure why), thinks he's quite smart when he's not very, thinks he knows a lot from reading (autodidact) and doesn't, self-important, quite well-off (he insists on making large bets at TSZ), and thinking he's quite clever (again, not very). Texan, from working class stock, not really with the fundies, and accepting the evidence for evolution while believing in the ID that should screw up the evidence for evolution (Behe's equally illogical about that).

If he is DaveScot, that could be why he's such a hideous troll, he wants to keep remarks minimal so he doesn't sound too much like DaveScot.

I should add that Mung doesn't seem very adept at programming, but, again, may be trying to fake that. He came up with a dumb Weasel program, however, it looked like he was spoofing.

Glen Davidson

Possibly, though it took more effort to write than a sensible one, to no apparent end.

If that were the case then he'ld be a double crossing ostensible ID agent. Pretending to be on their side but colaborating with the forces of ...er.."evolutionism" in a thinly veiled hoax that only ID Tards would believe. Or he's just simply a very stupid but savant ID apologist. For my money he's not smart enough to be the former given the shotgun sized hole that his brain has which most people need to think properly with.

You sure about that? Paying off on "large bets" is good evidence of being "quite well-off". Offering to make "large bets" is not the same thing at all. And… has anybody ever taken Mung up on any of those "large bets" of his?

A pretty funny thread is active over at TSZ at the moment. In WJM throws ID under the bus Allan Miller quotes a full comment from WJMurray at UD complaining about the shortfalls of evolutionary* theory, in which he never specifically mentions evolution. Given the title it is apparent (to most, anyway) that his complaints could apply equally to ID.

WJM is quick to come to his own defence claiming that he has been quote mined. When it is pointed out that he has been quoted fully he still claims that is still a quote mine because the OP should have been titled something like WJM unintentionally throws ID under the bus, and of course he meant evolution and not ID, and anyway all of the TSZ regulars are just moral relativists, and, and...It's another reminder that irony is a foreign concept to WJM specifically, and UD/ID generally.

What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.

What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.

But, but, but... Levin's a lawyer! And he worked for Ed Meese! What better credentials could there be?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.

Like I've been saying for a while: In the absence of active moderation, any online forum will eventually degenerate into a content-free, troll-ridden cesspool.

TSZ has never had active moderation, but then it started out with a decent supply of people who really did want to argue in good faith. So it began with a kind of analog to 'founder effect' operating at first. Sadly, there has never been any serious attempt to restrict TSZ participation to people who prefer good-faith argument over trollish bullshit… I mean, good lord, it took posting porn to get JoeG banned, and he's back with a new sockpuppet ID, completely unchanged!

IMAO, the only interesting things about TSZ at the moment are, first, that the degeneration took as long as it has, and second, how much longer it'll be until the last good-faith-aligned participant abandons TSZ to the kooks and bigots and trolls.

Cubist, thank you for your spot-on analysis. I would add, in terms of banning, JoeG was rightly banned for porn but then blithely let back in, while WJM posted SLANDER BASED ON LIBEL and only had his original posting privileges suspended (ETA: and of course he get those privileges back - WHAT?!?). That still boggles my mind.

You are right, the ridiculous anti-moderation philosophy has led to TSZ being in deep doo-doo as a forum. The awesome anti-UD heyday it once had is gone, though bright lights still shine through sometimes, and so I return to lurk. I know, someone might ask why I don't post and post and post in an attempt to clean the soot off the brass, but its trolly morass warns me off.

I will say, however, that you are also right about the looooong descent of TSZ, longer than many unmoderated places. Much of that does have to do with the venerable spirit in which it was founded, and I think that what moderation has continued to be there has been, on the whole, decent. Guano was, and remains, a good idea, as well as Noyau. They helped to keep things free yet under proper control, despite what some rather silly people say. As a "very light moderation" experiment, I think Lizzie did quite well. When TSZ was at its best, it reminded me of parents I know who raised their children with clearly set boundaries, and stuck to those boundaries, but let their children be free within those boundaries.

What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.

WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.

What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.

WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.

What's interesting to me is that he and vjtorley have now got the backing of Patrick, Petrushka, and a few others at TSZ who would be, or have been, summarily banned from UD.

What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.

WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.

What's interesting to me is that he and vjtorley have now got the backing of Patrick, Petrushka, and a few others at TSZ who would be, or have been, summarily banned from UD.

To be clear, I do not subscribe to the pizza gate conspiracy. I'm also not fan of either WJM or vjtorley. I am a fan of free speech, though.

For everyone here complaining about the light moderation at TSZ, what do you suggest? Who would you ban or censor? What benefit do you think would come from doing so? Have you considered the costs?

Even if you don't share my free speech absolutism, do you really want Mung forced out onto the wider 'net?

Cubist, thank you for your spot-on analysis. I would add, in terms of banning, JoeG was rightly banned for porn but then blithely let back in, while WJM posted SLANDER BASED ON LIBEL and only had his original posting privileges suspended (ETA: and of course he get those privileges back - WHAT?!?). That still boggles my mind.

You are right, the ridiculous anti-moderation philosophy has led to TSZ being in deep doo-doo as a forum. The awesome anti-UD heyday it once had is gone, though bright lights still shine through sometimes, and so I return to lurk. I know, someone might ask why I don't post and post and post in an attempt to clean the soot off the brass, but its trolly morass warns me off.

I will say, however, that you are also right about the looooong descent of TSZ, longer than many unmoderated places. Much of that does have to do with the venerable spirit in which it was founded, and I think that what moderation has continued to be there has been, on the whole, decent. Guano was, and remains, a good idea, as well as Noyau. They helped to keep things free yet under proper control, despite what some rather silly people say. As a "very light moderation" experiment, I think Lizzie did quite well. When TSZ was at its best, it reminded me of parents I know who raised their children with clearly set boundaries, and stuck to those boundaries, but let their children be free within those boundaries.

Two minor matters of fact:

William J Murray does not have automatic posting rights. They were rescinded after the "Pizzagate" post. Any OPs he writes require admin approval before publishing.

JoeG's sockpuppeting was tolerated for far too long but, absent Lizzie's input, admins had to agree before action. A committee is not the quickest form of decision making.

On the other hand, I appreciate what you say about Lizzie's original aim and objective and how the experiment was worth the effort and some good stuff got written and, I hope, read and enjoyed.

What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.

WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.

What's interesting to me is that he and vjtorley have now got the backing of Patrick, Petrushka, and a few others at TSZ who would be, or have been, summarily banned from UD.

To be clear, I do not subscribe to the pizza gate conspiracy. I'm also not fan of either WJM or vjtorley. I am a fan of free speech, though.

For everyone here complaining about the light moderation at TSZ, what do you suggest? Who would you ban or censor? What benefit do you think would come from doing so? Have you considered the costs?

Even if you don't share my free speech absolutism, do you really want Mung forced out onto the wider 'net?

I think of the minimal moderation we try and keep to at TSZ as editorial control rather than censorship. It is easy to support the home side, harder to be fair to the lone dissenter.

I also think in terms of a venue like a convivial pub or cafe. For the majority of the time for the vast majority of customers, the landlord can smile benignly and join in with the chat. Occasionally he needs to exert a little discipline.

Cubist, thank you for your spot-on analysis. I would add, in terms of banning, JoeG was rightly banned for porn but then blithely let back in, while WJM posted SLANDER BASED ON LIBEL and only had his original posting privileges suspended (ETA: and of course he get those privileges back - WHAT?!?). That still boggles my mind.

You are right, the ridiculous anti-moderation philosophy has led to TSZ being in deep doo-doo as a forum. The awesome anti-UD heyday it once had is gone, though bright lights still shine through sometimes, and so I return to lurk. I know, someone might ask why I don't post and post and post in an attempt to clean the soot off the brass, but its trolly morass warns me off.

I will say, however, that you are also right about the looooong descent of TSZ, longer than many unmoderated places. Much of that does have to do with the venerable spirit in which it was founded, and I think that what moderation has continued to be there has been, on the whole, decent. Guano was, and remains, a good idea, as well as Noyau. They helped to keep things free yet under proper control, despite what some rather silly people say. As a "very light moderation" experiment, I think Lizzie did quite well. When TSZ was at its best, it reminded me of parents I know who raised their children with clearly set boundaries, and stuck to those boundaries, but let their children be free within those boundaries.

Two minor matters of fact:

William J Murray does not have automatic posting rights. They were rescinded after the "Pizzagate" post. Any OPs he writes require admin approval before publishing.

JoeG's sockpuppeting was tolerated for far too long but, absent Lizzie's input, admins had to agree before action. A committee is not the quickest form of decision making.

On the other hand, I appreciate what you say about Lizzie's original aim and objective and how the experiment was worth the effort and some good stuff got written and, I hope, read and enjoyed.

Thank you, Alan, for clarifying WJM's posting rights. I still think that the original post he made after he was re-granted provisional rights was a heapin' helpin' o' seagull poop, and should have been relegated as such. And while I don't ascribe to public self-shaming, as long as you were asking JoeG to acknowledge his sins, you might have made a similar though different effort with WJM. I think his original post consisting of slander could well be seen as equivalent to JoeG's porn post.

JoeG should remain permanently banned, but that also remains just my opinion. And again, in my opinion, WJM ought to be denied original posting privileges, period - at TSZ, that is.

I have tried to make clear that I truly respect the efforts of the moderators at TSZ, in your attempts to keep Lizzie's ship aright in a maelstrom of trolls. If my comments do not reflect that respect, I apologize.

What's up with TSZ, that paranoid delusional right-wing fantasists have taken to posting their ravings there? First it was WJM with his pizzagate BS, now vjtorley blusters on about Trump's BS about wiretaps, quoting Mark Levin as a serious source! Perhaps I have the initials wrong in my search engine, and I am getting WND instead of TSZ.

WJM is back at UD spouting on about pizzagate. And now he has the full support of KF. The other tinfoil hat proponent.

What's interesting to me is that he and vjtorley have now got the backing of Patrick, Petrushka, and a few others at TSZ who would be, or have been, summarily banned from UD.

To be clear, I do not subscribe to the pizza gate conspiracy. I'm also not fan of either WJM or vjtorley. I am a fan of free speech, though.

For everyone here complaining about the light moderation at TSZ, what do you suggest? Who would you ban or censor? What benefit do you think would come from doing so? Have you considered the costs?

Even if you don't share my free speech absolutism, do you really want Mung forced out onto the wider 'net?

I think of the minimal moderation we try and keep to at TSZ as editorial control rather than censorship. It is easy to support the home side, harder to be fair to the lone dissenter.

I also think in terms of a venue like a convivial pub or cafe. For the majority of the time for the vast majority of customers, the landlord can smile benignly and join in with the chat. Occasionally he needs to exert a little discipline.